Banks v. Mortimer
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-07391-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Banks v. Mortimer, Judge Gilliam denied defendants’ dismissal motion without prejudice and separated related claims and discovery.
The order affected plaintiffs Greg Banks and Alexis Avalos and defendants Michael Mortimer, Ryan White, and the other parties identified in the complaint. It controlled how the individual, municipal, and supervisory claims would proceed and paused certain discovery.
What happened
In Banks v. Mortimer, plaintiffs Greg Banks and Alexis Avalos sued after Nathan Banks was shot and killed during an encounter involving Officer Michael Mortimer and K9 Officer Ryan White. They brought claims under a federal civil-rights law against the officers and claims alleging municipal and supervisory responsibility.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the municipal and supervisory claims. The court denied that motion without prejudice, meaning the defendants may renew it later. The court also ordered separate trials and discovery for the individual claims against the officers and the municipal and supervisory claims, and paused discovery limited to the latter claims.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. concluded that separating the claims could conserve the parties’ and court’s resources because the individual claims could affect the related municipal and supervisory claims. The court also set a case-management conference for May 4, 2021, and required the parties to file a joint case-management statement by April 30, 2021.
The detailed version
- Banks v. Mortimer · No. 4:18-cv-07391-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 23, 2021
Background
According to the first amended complaint, Nathan Banks was sitting in a parked vehicle with Jennifer Caldwell in Antioch, California, at about 11:30 p.m. on June 16, 2017. The complaint alleges that Antioch Police Officer Michael Mortimer prevented Nathan Banks from leaving the vehicle, pointed a firearm at him, and struck him on the head and upper body. It further alleges that Nathan Banks fled on foot, Mortimer chased him without calling for backup, and Mortimer shot him multiple times, killing him. The complaint also alleges that Mortimer and K9 Officer Ryan White ordered a police dog to attack Nathan Banks after the shooting, causing additional injury.
Greg Banks, identified as Nathan Banks’s father, and Alexis Avalos, identified as his daughter, asserted twelve claims individually and as successors-in-interest. The defendants sought dismissal of claims five through eight, which asserted supervisory and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute at issue here.
Motion to dismiss
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that such a motion is appropriate only when the complaint lacks either a legally recognized theory or enough supporting facts. At this stage, the court generally accepts factual allegations as true and views the complaint in the plaintiffs’ favor, while disregarding conclusory allegations and unreasonable factual inferences.
The court did not grant the defendants’ motion. It DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to dismiss. The order therefore did not finally resolve whether the municipal and supervisory claims were legally sufficient, and it stated that the defendants may renew the motion after the individual claims are adjudicated.
Bifurcation and discovery stay
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), a court may order separate trials of claims or issues to avoid prejudice, promote convenience, or save time and expense. The court exercised that authority to separate the trial and discovery concerning the individual liability claims against Mortimer and White from the Monell and supervisory-liability claims.
“Monell” liability is a claim that a municipality caused a constitutional injury through a policy or custom. The court reasoned that resolving the individual-officer claims first could conserve resources because a finding that the officers did not violate constitutional or statutory rights, or did not negligently cause Nathan Banks’s death, could dispose of the related claims against the municipality and supervisors. If the officers were found liable, the court stated that the established fact of liability could be used in the later trial.
The court also STAYED discovery on issues that exclusively concerned the Monell and supervisory-liability claims. Discovery directly related to the individual claims could proceed. The court set a case-management conference for May 4, 2021, at 2:00 p.m., and ordered the parties to file a joint case-management statement, including a proposed schedule through trial, by April 30, 2021.
Disposition
The court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE the defendants’ motion to dismiss; BIFURCATED the trial and discovery of the individual-liability claims from the Monell and supervisory-liability claims; and STAYED discovery limited exclusively to the Monell and supervisory-liability issues. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.